Baker v. State

• Decision Date: 19 March 1912
• Parties: BAKER v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

130 P. 820

9 Okla.Crim. 62, 1912 OK CR 473

BAKER v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

March 19, 1912

Syllabus by the Court.

(a) It is a fundamental right of a person accused of crime to be represented by counsel, and, in order that the accused may have the full benefit of this right, it is provided that when he appears for arraignment without counsel, he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have counsel before being arraigned, and he must be asked if he desires the aid of counsel. If he desires, and is unable to employ counsel, the court must assign counsel to defend him. Bill of Rights, § 20; Crim. Proc. § 6731 (Snyder's Comp. Laws 1909).

(b) This right may be waived by the defendant, but it cannot be denied by the court.

The term "counsel," as used in section 6731, Proc Crim. (Snyder's Comp. Laws 1909), providing that the court must assign counsel to defend indigent defendants means one who has been admitted as an attorney and counselor at law in this state.

Under the law (section 250, Snyder's Comp. Laws 1909) no person resident of the state shall be permitted to practice as an attorney in any action or proceeding in which he is not a party concerned unless he has been previously admitted to the bar by order of the Supreme Court, and the courts will take judicial notice of the fact that a person appearing and acting as an attorney and counselor at law is or is not duly authorized.

In a prosecution for a felony, it having been made to appear that the defendant was destitute of means to employ counsel, the court appointed a person to defend him who was not authorized to appear as an attorney at law in the courts of this state. Held, that this was, in effect, the denial of a fundamental right, and constitutes reversible error.

Appeal from District Court, Wagoner County; R. C. Allen, Judge.

Stanley Baker was convicted of larceny of live stock, and he appeals. Reversed.

Earnest L. Kistler, of Muskogee, Norman R. Haskell, of Oklahoma City and C.J. Nelson, of Wagoner, for plaintiff in error.

C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DOYLE J.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was tried in the district court of Wagoner county on an information charging him with the crime of larceny of live stock, and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of 10 years. The judgment and sentence was entered April 17, 1911, and on the same day the defendant was delivered to the warden of the state penitentiary at McAlester. To reverse the judgment an appeal was taken by petition in error with a certified transcript of the record.

It is assigned as error that the defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. It appears from the record that the court prior to entering upon the trial, it having been made to appear that the defendant was destitute of means to employ counsel, appointed one P. E. Reed to defend him. No brief was filed. Norman R. Haskell, Esq., appeared and argued the case orally. The proposition of the defendant's counsel upon which he bases his demand for a reversal of this judgment is as follows: That the trial court and this court will take judicial notice of the fact that P. E. Reed was not authorized to appear as an attorney in the courts of this state. Therefore the defendant was denied the benefit of counsel. And the attention of the court is directed to the fact that the journal record shows that said P. E. Reed was not admitted to practice as an attorney in this state until June 18, 1912. From an examination of the record the conclusion of the court is that the judgment in this case cannot be permitted to stand.

It is the right of a person put upon trial for a criminal offense to be represented by counsel. This right may be waived by the defendant, but it cannot be denied by the courts. The right of the accused to the assistance of counsel in making his defense has long been regarded in this country as essential to the due administration of justice in criminal cases. Says Mr. Cooley: "With us it is a universal principle of constitutional law that the prisoner shall be allowed a defense by counsel." Cooley, Const. Lim. 334. The Constitution of the United States expressly provides that: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Sixth amendment. And the right is secured in the Constitution of nearly every state. Our state Constitution provides that: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to be heard by himself and counsel." Bill of Rights, § 20. In order that the accused may have the full benefit of this fundamental right, it is provided by statute that when he appears for arraignment, upon a charge for felony without counsel, he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have counsel before being arraigned and he must be...